I agree with this.
a) Feminism in terms of the right of a woman to self-determine in every respect (and, to an extent, the cultural criticism that comes packaged with that) has always been a core component of libertarianism. This author conflates right-wing “small-government” “values voters” with libertarianism proper.
b) Every -ism or movement which is concerned with some aspect of human rights and which has become “politically correct” has been infiltrated by the State. Gay rights, women’s rights, the rights of blacks and “Latinos”, the right to peace (pacifism), etc.
This invariably manifests itself in the degeneration of the language and thought in the core movement. Where once feminists offered powerful, hard-hitting criticism of the status quo, today they have joined the boot-licking hierarchy in academia in their misguided pursuit to become the status quo.
c) In particular, mainline feminism has become infused with a bizarre kind of sexual Marxism. Feminism has become obsessed with gender-bending and blurring, as if somehow by dint of will they can manage to prove that “men and women are the same” - an obviously false proposition. But this is the same infantile error of reasoning by which many rights-movements that are infiltrated by the State go off the tracks - they confuse moral symmetry (Golden Rule, self-ownership, homesteading, etc.) with some kind of superficial “sameness of external attributes.”
As Rothbard and Rockwell understood decades ago, libertarianism needs to bridge these divides created by the ideological infiltration of the State. Declaring something to be a social program or project is a way to control the discussion and, thus, limit it. “The rights of women” in the hands of the Establishment is not about women’s rights at all… it’s about containing the rights of women and everyone else. The same goes for gay rights or any of these fad-rights movements.
So, yes, this marriage can be saved. And I will even say that mainline libertarians have a lot to learn… especially the “NAP fundamentalist” types who think that the non-aggression principle is the magic answer to every ill. It turns out that the human condition is very complex and every level is entangled with every other to some extent. But clear thinking (reason, in the most general sense) is still the only way to change things purposively - this is true by definition. That means that the pacifist community, the gay rights community, the feminist community, etc. need to understand that 1) they need to go back to their roots and again begin to apply reason to making their case and 2) they need to also think about what they all have in common with one another: human rights and human dignity, aka the right of the individual to self-direct. The philosophical libertarians (Rothbard et. al.) have laid the groundwork for how self-direction is possible in the absence of a Universal Sky-Bully Who Clubs Bad People Over The Head (the State) - a point over which feminists, gay-rights activists, et. al. are perennially confused.
Clayton -
Yes. That’s strongly what it comes down to.
The sad thing about being repressed is that we have a tendency to become tyrants ourselves to end the oppression over ourselves. And don’t immediately see that we’ve replaced one tyrant with another.
By this means, tyranny creates new tyrants even after the one has been overthrown. One look at Egypt’s Mursi proves that to me daily lately :\
a) Feminism in terms of the right of a woman to self-determine in every respect (and, to an extent, the cultural criticism that comes packaged with that) has always been a core component of libertarianism. This author conflates right-wing “small-government” “values voters” with libertarianism proper.
If you take a general “right to self-determination”, what is the point of feminism then?
Feminism how I see it concluding from their literature and proponents is about making demands towards men, demanding from the state to interfere and act on behalf of women and demolishing female gender roles.
There is of course some variety in those themes, but it short feminstist aim at getting the state to priviledge women over men and to act on their behalf coercively (with men still having to pay the state and to pay the women also after breaking up on marriage or other relational agreements).
I’m aware of a feminist core (probably bigger in the 70’s and maybe 80’s, but still there) that believes that what they perceive as x number of years of patriarchal domination needs to be “balanced” by an equal number of years of matriarchal domination. In that particular language, it’s often acknowledged that there are negatives to the kind of world order they propose, but that the need for so-called balance requires it anyway.
Radical Dianic witchcraft pretty much accepts the above as a religious necessity too. Down with the masculine supreme deity, up with the feminine alternative…eye for an eye in politics and religion.
In such a language, there’s no room for looking for a better alternative to either system.
It has become this but it was not always so. If you read the early 19th-century feminists, a lot of the things they were complaining about were a) genuine complaints when measured on the basis of NAP (i.e. on the basis of human rights) and b) a direct or indirect result of State meddling and favoritism towards men. However, the infiltration of the State into the feminist camp has completely distorted the movement. It’s no longer about human rights and dignity, it’s about some kind of “payback” (h/t Lady Saiga) and they are no longer interested in changing the laws that oppress women (sometimes through the agency of men, though often not); instead, their primary strategy is to pass laws to create new privileges for women. Note that the State remains the focal point of all power regardless of how it turns out, which was the purpose of the State’s infiltration and “championing” of feminism.
Clayton -
One of the more enlightening things libertarians could take from this article is its examination of consent. Libertarians recognize that taxation is non-consensual because the practice ultimately rests upon the threat of force. Yet if we were to examine people paying taxes, that threat is rarely present – people simply pay there taxes without someone standing there with a gun to their head. In fact, many people find a claim such as “taxation is theft” to be absurd because it seems as if people consent since they go ahead and pay.
Yet when it comes to something like intercourse and rape, it isn’t nearly as clear as we think it is whether or not consent is given. Just as I pay my taxes and still recognize that I’m being robbed, I could imagine how a woman could “say yes” and recognize her experience as rape. Johnson’s solution, I think, is illuminating:
In other words, the strictly involuntary case of taxation is such because it rests on the legalization of illegitimate force, while the broadly involuntary case of “fuzzy” rape is such because despite rapes legal prohibition, it rests on the social structures which put men in a position of dominance over women, thus creating a constantly veiled threat of force (even when such a threat might not be present).
If nothing else, the fact that not all consent looks the same should be of interest to libertarians whose credo might be summed up as “so long as its voluntary.”
+1 mikachussetts…
Awesome analysis and I wholeheartedly agree. We must always be on the guard against trite dismissal of real violations of human rights through roundabout means - this is the whole foundation of State power but the State is hardly the only entity that is guilty of violating people’s rights through roundabout means.
Clayton -
It’s an interesting point. The point about the presence of threat regarding taxation is that there are certain relationships where this threat is present. The mailman doesn’t threaten you if you don’t pay your taxes. The clerk at the RMV does not threaten you if you don’t pay your taxes. IRS agents do threaten you if you don’t pay your taxes. The police the IRS calls threaten you. So the threat of force is only present in some relationships regarding agents of the state. The threat of force is not present in all relationships with agents of the state. The threat of force is present in taxation, or it wouldn’t be taxation.
Regarding rape, there may be some relationships where the threat of force is present. Some women may be married to men who will beat them or kill them if they don’t have sex with their husbands whenever he wants. Just as with taxation, the threat of force is not ever-present regarding all males (for sex) or all agents of the state (for taxation). Even if there is a social structure where men are dominant over women, this does not mean that each and every relationship between a man and woman have the threat of force if the woman does not have sex at the man’s behest.
So it may be correct to accuse some feminists of blurring the distinction so long as they make sweeping generalizations. When libertarians accuse the state of theft, it is shorthand for the relevant agents of the state engaging in the theft. Not all libertarians are familiar with methodological individualism, but even so, I’ve never heard a libertarian accuse the mailman as one of these relevant agents. The accusation is about taxation itself, and the people accused as being thieves are typically the politicians, the IRS, and whatever goon the state sends after you should you not comply.
The consent has to be examined under each relevant relationship. If a feminist asserts that there is an ever-present threat of force (or constantly veiled threat of force) against women, then she is blurring the distinctions. If she asserts that there is an ever-present threat of force regarding a specific relationship (she can always list more than one relationship), then the claims can be examined to see whether or not the assertion is true for that particular relationship. She may be right. There may be certain relationships (and there certainly are such relationships) where there is a constantly veiled threat of force against women in certain relationships.
Not all agents of the state are guilty of aggression, and not all men are guilty of some constantly veiled threat of force against women.
reading mens rights websites with comments filled with misogyny and womens rights websites filled with misandry, perhaps egalitarianism can be a term with less of that hatred and prejudice.
gotlucky,
I agree with what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing he fundamental issue. When I pay my taxes, there is not a single person threatening me – I don’t have someone telling me that I better pay my taxes or else. They are withheld from my income, and I file a tax return in the Spring. However, I have no problem explaining that situation as one of coercion because I know that IF i refused to pay, the law would allow for my wages to be garnished, my possesions to be reposessed, or even to put me in jail. Although the threat isn’t imminent, it is visible to anyone who chooses to research the law. Because of this, we can see that my paying taxes without protest doesn’t count as consent.
With intercourse, however, the threat can be invisible. If a woman believed (either correctly or mistakenly) that a man might “rough her up” if she doesn’t say yes, she might very well agree to it. Now, if it were really the case that he would have gotten violent with her if she didn’t have sex, we could easily say that she didn’t really consent, that rape had occured. But since we don’t know, then the way that we understand consent in such cases has to be different from the way we understand consent in traditional libertarian terms.
Although I’m not intimately familiar with feminist theory, I think its prima facie plausible that certain social structures reinforce patterns of male dominance putting women in a submissive role such that it isn’t clear if consent is given. Insofar as this is the case, then libertarians ought to oppose these structures since they make what should be voluntary (sex) into something increasingly involuntary (rape).
The issue of whether any given man is raping any given woman is something, like you pointed out, we determine on a case by case basis. But just as we are able to examine the entire institution of the state and recognize that it’s aggressive on that level, regardless of whether or not certain state agents are committing agression – I think we can also examine entire cultural norms and attitudes and recognize that they are oppressive (obviously in a much more nuanced way than the state), regardless of whether or not certain individuals practicing such norms are actually committing opression.
It’s not aggression because the law says so. The law says a lot of things that the state’s agents don’t pursue. When the mafia threatens you for protection money, just because this time they don’t smash your shop’s windows doesn’t mean that the threat isn’t there. The threats are implicit versus explicit. Whether one of the state’s goons is at your doorstep or not is immaterial to the fact that there is an implied threat.
Absolutely the threat can be implicit instead of explicit. For there to be rape, there must violence, the threat of violence, or both. If there was no violence, then there must have been a threat. The threat can be implicit or explicit. If neither occurred, then there was no rape. The woman may have thought it was the case, but that doesn’t make it so. It would be an unfortunate situation.
There may be certain social structures reinforcing patterns of male dominance in certain communities and societies, but ultimately what matters is the particular relationship between the man and woman involved. Social structures don’t threaten people, implicitly or explicitly. People threaten people. It may be harder to discern if the man is threatening the woman depending upon the context, but ultimately the man must actually threaten the woman. He cannot considered guilty just because of the context he was born into or lives in.
Agreed.
You say this as if implicit threats are easily identifiable. If a 200 lb man invites a woman home from the bar, and then proceeds to show her his gun collection and says something like “I always get what I want” – its not at all clear that he is actually threatening her. At the same time, if the two had sex, I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying that there was no rape. The line of consent just isn’t clear.
We oppose coercive laws, even though we recognize that its not the laws themselves that are committing acts of agression. I don’t see how this is any different. I mean, we don’t just oppose the actions of government agents, we oppose the entire institution. We recognize that the state distorts the market even in indirect ways – and we don’t say “oh man, shame on that businessman for hiring lobbyists to pass bills in favor of his company” – we say “hey, this whole system of rent seeking is a natural result of the state.”
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not talking about this in a legal context. Although I’m pointing out how hard it is to determine whether rape is really occuring or not, my intent isn’t to come to some conclusion regarding guilt or how the law should be applied. My point is that insofar as there are cultural norms and social structures which help to blur the lines of consent, we should oppose such things.
Actually, I think it means that egalitarianism is misanthropy.
Clayton -
As a woman, and as a former victim of sexual abuse that falls under this category, my personal experience may be illuminating.
In my case, I was young and trusting, and he was a supervisor. I was outweighed and in a position of implied obligation to consent.
I was the victim of coercion. I said no. I did not take sufficiently strong action to avoid repeat encounters out of the social reasons above, and thus I to date blame myself for the ongoing situation I got into; but still, I said no. That makes it a pretty clear cut situation.
If I had said “yes”, even out of fear, I’m sorry but I would have been unable to claim victimhood. How is the guy supposed to be able to interpret an answer like that? How can he know he’s in the wrong?
I don’t believe it’s possible to blame an individual for being in a position of authority like that. You still have to assert yourself as a victim or potential victim if you want to be able to claim that you’ve been aggressed against. You don’t get to essentially lie about your consent and still consider yourself wronged.
If a police officer attempted to arrest you for possesion of marijuana, and you did not resist arrest, does that mean you consented to being arrested?
Yep. It doesn’t seem like rocket science.
I mean, if I can see this, so can other women. If I’d had the least bit of gumption I’d have given the man a good scar, but I was idiotically meek as a teenager. I was fully aware that I was not effectively standing up for myself in spite of the fact that I’d begged him to stop.
Although I blame myself for not resorting to violence for self defense, I have a definitive way to say I was the victim. I said no; I appealed to his reason and he ignored the appeal. Simple as that. That’s assault.
You’re a fool if you’re too scared to say no. It’s not going to go any easier on you by saying yes. The society and the masculine gender as a whole shouldn’t be expected pay the price in freedom for the sake of a few women who are too stupid to realize that rape is still gonna suck even if he thinks you’re willing.
Now, wait. I don’t think you understood me. I don’t suggest that resisting arrest (as in using violence or running away) is necessary. I suggest that the verbal nonconsent is the important part.
Condolences to you. Not to pry, but I’m curious on your thoughts of how common sexual favors are at the workplace (whether eagerly pursued or unwilling as in your case). I look around me and I see strangely unexplainable promotions of certain people and it makes a person think. Again, I don’t want to pry for details you’re uncomfortable divulging, but how does a supervisor create a “position of implied obligation to consent”? I don’t need specific details, generalities will be good enough. I’m sure that managers/supervisors do this even at the company I work at… I just want to understand how prevalent it is and the basic psychology underlying it (in the general case, not necessarily your specific case). Is it driven solely by ego and the feeling of power or is it sometimes a two-way quid pro quo? How do people go about signalling their intentions (whether initiated by the junior or the senior person) without risking firing?
Clayton -
There’s another element to situations like those. Where the woman is overpowered and/or overawed she is usually there and pondering consent because she has something to gain from it. Whether she says yes or no may not be related to whether she likes the idea, but rather whether she places great value on what she might get out of saying yes as opposed to maintaining her comfort/dignity.
In my case, the pressure to say yes involved the belief that I needed the job. In other cases, it might be the desire for some other advantage, like access to money or priviledge.
I think if a woman has trouble saying “no” she’s a lot more likely to be conflicted about her eventual benefit than she is about her personal safety.